In a ruling on the PP’s urgent request, the Supreme Court dismissed its bid to compel government ministers to appear in the Senate this August over the crisis in Ceuta. The court’s Vacation Chamber found that the PP had not shown the exceptional urgency required for a so-called “cautelarísima” order before hearing the government’s State Attorney. The ruling addressed only the request for immediate relief. It did not decide the underlying dispute over the executive’s authority to determine when ministers appear before the Senate.
The PP, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, had sought a fast-track ruling to compel ministers to appear during the extraordinary August session. Its legal strategy aimed to secure hearings before the court ruled on whether the executive could determine the timing of ministerial appearances. A “cautelarísima” measure would have allowed the court to act without first receiving the State Attorney’s response on the government’s behalf. The judges concluded that the need for parliamentary oversight did not, by itself, require hearings during the final week of August. They also said the government’s right to be heard could not be displaced without compelling justification.
The Supreme Court said it would consider the merits after receiving the State Attorney’s submissions, and that the proceedings should not suffer undue delay. The immediate decision leaves the constitutional question open. The government must be heard before the court proceeds.
The dispute is part of a wider confrontation between the PP-controlled Senate and the national government over ministerial accountability following the mass irregular entry into Ceuta on 30 and 31 July 2026. The Senate has brought as many as seven conflicts of attribution before the Constitutional Court over alleged government failures to comply with parliamentary requests. The latest is linked to ministers’ non-appearance over Ceuta. PP Senate spokesperson Alicia García has announced a new Senate “offensive” and said the chamber would establish an investigative commission into the border surge.
The government’s account of its response has focused on returns to Morocco, reception capacity and migrant screening, alongside coordination under a “Situation of National Security Interest” declared in Ceuta. In October, Minister of Territorial Policy and Democratic Memory Ángel Víctor Torres said 13,101 people had returned to Morocco since 10 August. He also cited nearly 8,000 reception places made available, with 6,100 occupied, as well as 5,400 adult screenings and 310 screenings of minors. Immigration cases were expected to take about 12 weeks to process.
The same figures identified 3,434 unaccompanied minors in Ceuta’s protection system. Of these, 114 had been transferred to mainland Spain following family reunification, while 181 were relocated to other autonomous communities under immigration legislation. Another 63 files were sent to Morocco for possible family reunification. Torres has argued that distributing minors requires “mandatory justice and solidarity” among the autonomous communities. He has also described the scale of the arrivals as unforeseeable and criticized PP-led regional governments for resisting the reception of minors.
The parliamentary dispute is unfolding alongside a separate confrontation between Ceuta’s autonomous government and the basic executive. President Juan Jesús Vivas submitted a preliminary request to Madrid in September concerning state measures after the July events. The government has pointed to the national-security declaration and subsequent operations as evidence that state services had not been inactive. Torres also said 244,000 meals had been provided to migrants and announced a discreet operation targeting roughly 200 people staying in garages and homes in Ceuta’s El Príncipe neighbourhood.
The case goes beyond whether ministers must attend the Senate during a particular session. It concerns the division of authority between Parliament and the executive. The Supreme Court’s refusal to bypass the government’s response did not settle that broader issue; it found that the urgent application did not justify proceeding without first hearing the State Attorney.
